Xbox marketing chief talks to Ars about the benefits of the move to a "digital world."

"This is a big change, consumers don't always love change, and there's a lot of education we have to provide to make sure that people understand."

This is the extremely diplomatic way Microsoft Xbox Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer Yusuf Mehdi spun his reaction to the PR challenges surrounding the Xbox One of late. And it's true, consumers around the world (and around the Internet) loudly expressed how much they dislike the changes Microsoft announced to its game licensing terms (and online requirements) for the Xbox One last Thursday, giving Sony the ammunition it needed to win E3 by basically doing nothing.

The reaction wasn't a surprise to Mehdi, though. In fact, he said a lot of the way people have responded to Microsoft's moves was "kind of as we expected." But the implication of his statements in an in-depth interview with Ars Technica was that this temporary confusion and discomfort among the audience would be worth it as gamers and consumers adjust to a console world without game discs.

"We're trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the digital world. We believe the digital world is the future, and we believe digital is better."

Mehdi made a comparison to the world of home movie viewing, where inconvenient trips to Blockbuster Video have been replaced with Netflix streaming on practically every TV-connected device. On Xbox One, having all games exist as cloud-connected downloads enables new features like the ability to access your entire library at a friend's house with a single login or loaning games to up to ten "family members" digitally and remotely.

It’s a “family” affair

Since its announcement, there has been some confusion over the details of sharing your Xbox One game library with up to ten "family members." Mehdi couldn't give comprehensive details, but he did clarify some things.

For one, a family member doesn't have to be a "blood relative," he said, eliminating the extremely unlikely possibility that the Xbox One would include a built-in blood testing kit. For another, they don't have to live in the primary owner's house—I could name a friend that lives 3,000 miles away as one of my "family members" Mehdi said.

You'll be able to link other Xbox Live accounts as having shared access to your library when you first set up a system and will also be able to add them later on (though specific details of how you manage these relationships is still not being discussed). The only limitation, it seems, is that only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time. All in all, this does sound like a pretty convenient feature that's more workable than simply passing discs around amongst friends who are actually in your area.

Those digital "benefits" will be available at launch, but Mehdi hinted that the digital rights management transition might unlock some more interesting game access and distribution methods later on. "In the future, you can imagine the capability to have different licensing models, different ways that people have to access games. This all gets unlocked because of digital." He wouldn't get drawn into details, but when I suggested ideas like an "all-you-can-play" Netflix for games or purely digital game rentals, he didn't shoot me down. "Sure. It could be a variety of ways."

Mehdi also suggested that the transition to a world of strictly downloadable and online-connected games would help allow for "a diversity of business models" for publishers to take advantage of, from free-to-play titles to $60 AAA games to Xbox Live Arcade games somewhere in between. "As you go into a digital world, what's happening is publishers are choosing to have different business models, and consumers are saying 'Hey, if I can't resell the title, provide me a different way to get value to get into your game.' And we think the market will be efficient in finding good models that work for consumers." In essence, Mehdi said, consumer demand for good value from games will drive prices down, even if a publisher decides to fully cut off the market release valve of used game resale.

Publishers, of course, have been the most forceful proponents of cutting off the used game market, with some suggesting that used games are comparable to piracy for their bottom line. But Mehdi said that Microsoft wasn't simply "giving in" to publisher demands with its new game licensing terms. Instead, it was trying to balance the needs of its four main "constituents," including the consumer (who comes "first and foremost" he said), game publishers, retailers, and Microsoft itself as a company.

"Within that, we've tried to optimize, and I think we've found a great balance across all of those dimensions," Mehdi said. "But there are tradeoffs. We do want to support everyone in that system, beginning with the consumer. But we want publishers to get paid for the great IP they work on. We want retailers to be able to drive and sell our products and make a profit. So we are trying to balance across all those."

Mehdi noted that purely digital game marketplaces like the iOS App Store have thrived despite having absolutely no physical media. Implementing that kind of disc-free system on the Xbox One "may not [have been] the best thing for consumers, and it may not [have been] the thing they [would have] wanted," Mehdi said, which is part of why Microsoft decided to keep discs as an option. Still, he did concede that, without discs, the licensing norms for the system "would be easier to understand."

The way Mehdi talked about Microsoft's licensing decisions reinforced the idea that he saw the limited abilities to share and transfer Xbox One games as a step up from other, purely digital marketplaces, even if some others see it as a step down from current disc-based distribution systems. On the Xbox One, Mehdi said the company has "tried to… bridge the two in a way that no one has done—to give you the power of digital and then give you all this power in physical. … We know we're providing a lot more value to consumers, but in that comes a lot of need to clarify 'how come disc, how come digital, how's that work?'"

While the Internet is decidedly up in arms about the way the Xbox One handles game ownership and online check-ins, Mehdi said it was "hard to say" what the larger reaction from the less attentive mainstream consumers would be. "I think it's fair to say there's a segment of consumers at this show in particular who really pay attention, who are very passionate about all aspects of gaming, and that we listen to closely. In a broader set of community, people don't pay attention to a lot of the details. We've seen it in the research, we've seen it in a lot of the data points."

One data point in particular Mehdi pointed to was the success of the initial pre-orders for the Xbox One, which started as soon as Microsoft's press conference concluded Monday. "Amazon basically says they are on path to sell out… Amazon is saying it's one of their best-selling consumer products. We're seeing the same thing from other retailers." To be fair, PlayStation 4 pre-orders were also a quick sell-out on Amazon after the company's press conference on Monday. Still, "it's very clear there are a wide variety of other consumers that love to game that are excited about what we have to offer with Xbox One," Mehdi said.

While the Xbox One will sell for $100 more than the PlayStation 4, Mehdi suggested that the extra money spent would be worthwhile to consumers looking for the "best value" in their next gaming system. Besides exclusive titles and gaming content, Mehdi said players would see value in the system being "backed by 300,000 servers backed by Microsoft that enable incredible game experiences." Also, Mehdi said, the Kinect in each box provides for better gameplay and "ease of use for the entire system." Things like live TV support and exclusive NFL and Skype partnerships will also help show consumers the Xbox One's "tremendous value."

"We want to have our offering be differentiated relative to all others," he said. "It has value that is in so many areas that is not in competing systems… That is a thing that each consumer will choose… and ultimately consumers will decide which is better. It's a big market."

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

748 Reader Comments

Once the dust settles and smoke clears, I think people will warm up to Xbox way more than people here seem to assume.

One thing I don't understand is how come nobody mentions that PS4's $400 price tag doesn't include the Eye camera while Xbox One includes Kinect? It was weird watching pages and pages of people going ape over the news of Xbox price yesterday without any mention of that. Sure I understand some people don't care for Kinect, but I think a lot of people do want the next gen Kinect.

That's a good thing actually. Rather than bundling a peripheral that many people may not want or need (especially on day one), Sony shows respect for gamer preferences. Even if you DO buy the camera with the system, it's still less expensive than the Xbox One.

do you worry that your cell phone apps will go away when there are no more authentication servers left? do you worry about your Steam games going away? do you worry about your Kindle library going away?

I actually do, but it's much more unlikely. New hardware doesn't make current software incompatible neither on cellphones nor on PCs. PCs have outlasted any single console and PC software from many years ago usually works fine on today's hardware. It doesn't take much effort to make the Steam compatible with a new version of Windows or newer hardware.

Consoles have a limited life, after which, software developers and console manufacturers stop caring. I just can't trust MS to keep their servers alive 5 years after the XB1 dies just because some dudes out there want to play their games. I can, however, trust that a console with offline mode, won't need them to allow me to play a single-player or local-multi-player game just like I do with my older consoles every once in a while. Furthermore, I enjoy revisiting them with my nephew.

In summary, I do get scared at the thought of Steam shutting down my library or cutting access, but I believe that won't happen unless they go bankrupt. Even then, Steam has a permanent offline-mode available, so Steamworks games will work in such a scenario. This applies to cellphones as well. XB1 has no such feature.

well, the One is x86/x64 based. And the core is Windows (a specialized form of Windows 8). I suspect that from here on out, the games will be compatible as they have to go to more rapid iterations of hardware to keep up in the rapidly changing world. upgrade the parts as Intel/AMD ramp down and ramp up next gen parts to take advantage of commodity pricing.

First of all, I am a bit bothered to the Steam comparisons. Xbone services will NOT be like Steam - the main reason being lack of competition. If I don't like Steam I can get the game through other online channels. That puts pressure on Steam to keep prices down. And if I am interested in selling the game down the road (in today's model), I merely purchase a physical disc and I'm golden. Xbone does not provide this choice...

You are off on a tangent. Oh, and are patently wrong. PC games still can't be resold. There is no resale market impacting PC game sales. Hasn't been since before Steam was even developed. PC game developers killed the resale market years ago by the introduction of CD keys. You are not going to buy a PC game and resell it if you want - (a) it will probably register to Steam and (b) the CD key prevents you from doing just that.

Cartigan, I respecyfully disagree. Many (on this thread included) have brought up the topic of Steam as a comparison point for an online distribution model.

1) Collective wrongness does not make something not wrong.2) That literally has nothing to do with why I am saying you are wrong or on a tangent.

Quote:

Microsoft's marketing strategy shows a clear preference towards this to suppress the used games market and get to the point were Xbone games will not be able to be resold.

Are you kidding? Every publisher's ultimate goal is the destruction of the first sale doctrine. That's why books will be replaced by eBooks. Microsoft wants that as a publisher and as a system manufacturer to make all the publishers happy.

Quote:

My point was that, in an online only scenario, the lack of competition (or distribution vector, if you will) monopolizes the acquisition of games through MS. This means that there will be no incentive for MS to lower prices down the line, which is the main attraction that supporters of a Steam-like model point to when they compare MS's new models to it. They say: "Steam works for PC, why not for xbone?". Well the reasons why are the ones I have stated. Xbone games will NOT get cheaper. Steam is kept in check precisely because of competition (whether online or physical).

But Steam is not kept in check by a PC resale market because it hasn't existed in years. Moreover, Valve has no reason to put on sales for games that are not sold anywhere else - yet they do. Steam has sales because Valve wants sales. Period. Your argument that Microsoft won't put games on sale is laughably shortsighted and you are clearly wearing Microsoft hate blinders. Sales have a specific purpose and only part of that purpose has anything to do with undercutting competition. If Microsoft wants sales, they will put games on sale. If they don't, they won't.

Valve has competition enough that they allow you to buy games and bring them to steam through activation of keys. They want you to buy games through them rather than through other retailers but they can't lock out the others. I buy my indies through humble-store to get the drm-free version or through gog if what I want is there. I usually buy my games through Steam only on sales, otherwise I go to whomever has the cheapest price. Steam doesn't have a monopoly on distribution since you can get the keys to activate games elsewhere. If that were not the case, sales wouldn't exist.

As much as I like Valve and Steam, they are a company and for-profit at that. If they were a monopoly, sales wouldn't be as frequent. MS has no incentive to be more like valve, they don't need it on a console, so the supposed benefits of all-digital are non-existent.

You expressed it far better than I: Steam cannot lock-out other channels, while MS is attempting to do so a la Apple Store

Let's say you own 11 games. These games are in your library. You add 10 friends and family members to your account. What's possible? You can play one game while every one of your 10 friends plays one of your games. The only restriction is that everyone has to be playing different games at any given time.

Now, I'm assuming that the game owner (you) gets first priority. If your friend is playing your copy of Forza Motorsport 5, and you want to play it, tough luck for them. They'll have to finish their race another time (or let their drivatar finish it).

Notice how parts of the document say "friends and family" but the part of sharing games only says "family". They will probably add some restriction or check (perhaps based on credit card credential) to make sure you can't just share to anybody but only family members. So I doubt you'll be able to switch around "families" and share to your friends. Also the doc clearly says you and only ONE FAMILY member can be playing your shared library at the same time. Not per game.

"We're trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the digital world. We believe the digital world is the future, and we believe digital is better."

I guess 'digital' sounds better than 'software as a service (which you never own)'.

"We're trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the software as a service world. We believe the software as a service world is the future, and we believe software as a service is better."

Then activate using a smartglass enabled smartphone over 3G/4G/Edge. Im sure there will be situations when literally no access can be made but these are few and far between.

That's your solution? "Buy a smartphone?"

Quote:

Exemptions could be made for servicemen away from home etc.

They could, yes. Will they? That's the question they haven't answered.

Quote:

This generation will see a lot more games with persistent worlds, campaign multiplayer etc where a constant connection is required. Those without are out of luck unfortunately (just like they cant play online multiplayer now, or WOW, Guild Wars, SWTOR, League of Legends etc....).

The difference is that those games are inherently dedicated to online play with other people. Try applying that logic to a new Super Mario game... which could be fun with online multi-player, but should never be required just to play the game on your own.

"Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

"any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time"

That confirms the worst option for this whole system - only one friend can be playing a game that you've lent out ("shared") at any one time.

Bob plays your copy of Forza. Alice can now not play your copy of Halo, not until he's finished his game.

"straight from MS"

I'm guessing you're hung up on the "one" in that sentence. I understand, English is tricky. But the context of that sentence, and many other official sources make it clear that's not the correct interpretation.

So Sony's model where only the person that has access to the physical disc may play is better than having up to 10 family members play the game on any console at any time with one purchase? Makes sense..

Ooh, what console allows up to 10 family members to play a game on any console at any time with one purchase?

Because it isn't the XBox One.

I'm unsure on the details (because Microsoft haven't CLEARLY said how things will work) but it appears that if you lend a game, then only the person you lend it to can play it at that time - you "loan" the game license to them. You can't play it any longer. None of your other 9 friends in the whole world can play it either.

I'm unsure if this extends to other games that you lend - I have seen it said that you can only lend one game at a time to one person out of your ten friends. I think this sounds silly, but so far most of Microsoft's XBox One policies have been silly.

I have also seen it written that you can only lend or resell a game once.

It's clear.

Let's say you own 11 games. These games are in your library. You add 10 friends and family members to your account. What's possible? You can play one game while every one of your 10 friends plays one of your games. The only restriction is that everyone has to be playing different games at any given time.

Now, I'm assuming that the game owner (you) gets first priority. If your friend is playing your copy of Forza Motorsport 5, and you want to play it, tough luck for them. They'll have to finish their race another time (or let their drivatar finish it).

Now, used games.

If you give away your game to a friend, transferring your license to them, that costs nothing. The only restrictions in that case are that they have to have been on your friends list (your entire friends list, not just the 10 sharing) for 30 days, and the game can only be transferred once.

If you sell your game to a participating retailer, you no longer own the game, but that copy of the game can be sold and resold many times.

Let me preface this by saying that no one on this forum/outside of MS actually knows what the final procedures will be.

Once again - There's no answer as to exactly how the "10 family member sharing" works. We have no idea if it will allow 11 different games to be played simultaneously or if it's going to be 1 or 2 consoles at a time.

And on the subject of selling to a participating retailer - I can absolutely see you getting less money from selling your game (due to them having "membership fees") and them charging anywhere from 1-5 dollars less than a brand-new game (due to "activation fees").

If you've got an EXPLICIT statement from MS saying otherwise, please point us in that direction. I'm not counting any current releases due to the number of contradictory statements from higher-ups that fail to even attempt the appearance of a unified front.

Let's say you own 11 games. These games are in your library. You add 10 friends and family members to your account. What's possible? You can play one game while every one of your 10 friends plays one of your games. The only restriction is that everyone has to be playing different games at any given time.

Now, I'm assuming that the game owner (you) gets first priority. If your friend is playing your copy of Forza Motorsport 5, and you want to play it, tough luck for them. They'll have to finish their race another time (or let their drivatar finish it).

Notice how parts of the document say "friends and family" but the part of sharing games only says "family". They will probably add some restriction or check (perhaps based on credit card credential) to make sure you can't just share to anybody but only family members. So I doubt you'll be able to switch around "families" and share to your friends. Also the doc clearly says you and only ONE FAMILY member can be playing your shared library at the same time. Not per game.

do you worry that your cell phone apps will go away when there are no more authentication servers left? do you worry about your Steam games going away? do you worry about your Kindle library going away?

Yes, it does bother me that iOS and Steam games may not be available years down the line because the DRM authentication servers are no longer running. Which is one of the reasons why I won't pay more than $10 or $15 for games from either of those platforms. Somehow I don't think MS, EA, Activision, or other major publishers are planning on lowering their prices to reflect that loss of value.

I have the same concern about e-books, which is one of the reasons I choose not to purchase/license them at all.

So yeah, you may not thing or worry about this stuff, but some of us do.

I didn't say Steam is kept in check by a resale market, did I? I never referred to used PC games sales. I said it is kept in check by competition - new sale/games competition. Both online and physical. Trust me, if Steam was the only vector for selling games, they'd charge more.

Ok, so please explain who, exactly, is going to be the only seller of Xbox1 games? Are all the publishers going to go digital? They haven't on the PC. Are Xbox1 games not going to be sold at Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Gamestop, fye, et al? I don't understand where you are going here.

Evidently.

Amazon, Target, et al are retailers. But the new model is the same as getting an online copy. The disc is pretty much useless. MS is deliberately trying to lock-out competition so they can keep prices high - used game resale competition. This is obviously speculation on my part, but it seems and opinion shared by some. MS gets a cut for every new game regardless which channel sells is (Amazon, etc.) - it doesn't get a cut for used game sales. So, limit them by making the process more difficult.

Which is why the ongoing comparison with Steam is important. MS wants the benefits of Steam (no used game sales) without the need to offer as frequent sales due to the fact that there will a reduced second hand market.

Steam needs to compete with used games (on consoles) and new games (other channels). So they offer sales to bulk up volume of sales and make a profit.

Every new game sale goes to MS. Not every new game sale (by definition) goes to Steam. The latter have a different model, and a successful one at that which users seem to value. I don't see much value out of MS's proposal. Because selling used games is a hassle, and because sales for any games will probably be less and far between.

So Sony's model where only the person that has access to the physical disc may play is better than having up to 10 family members play the game on any console at any time with one purchase? Makes sense..

Ooh, what console allows up to 10 family members to play a game on any console at any time with one purchase?

Because it isn't the XBox One.

I'm unsure on the details (because Microsoft haven't CLEARLY said how things will work) but it appears that if you lend a game, then only the person you lend it to can play it at that time - you "loan" the game license to them. You can't play it any longer. None of your other 9 friends in the whole world can play it either.

I'm unsure if this extends to other games that you lend - I have seen it said that you can only lend one game at a time to one person out of your ten friends. I think this sounds silly, but so far most of Microsoft's XBox One policies have been silly.

I have also seen it written that you can only lend or resell a game once.

It's clear.

Let's say you own 11 games. These games are in your library. You add 10 friends and family members to your account. What's possible? You can play one game while every one of your 10 friends plays one of your games. The only restriction is that everyone has to be playing different games at any given time.

Now, I'm assuming that the game owner (you) gets first priority. If your friend is playing your copy of Forza Motorsport 5, and you want to play it, tough luck for them. They'll have to finish their race another time (or let their drivatar finish it).

for your own library of games, you will always have access to it. other people on your family list, only one can access the game simultaneously. the details aren't fully known.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/licenseAccess your entire games library from any Xbox One—no discs required: After signing in and installing, you can play any of your games from any Xbox One because a digital copy of your game is stored on your console and in the cloud. So, for example, while you are logged in at your friend’s house, you can play your games.

Share access to your games with everyone inside your home: Your friends and family, your guests and acquaintances get unlimited access to all of your games. Anyone can play your games on your console--regardless of whether you are logged in or their relationship to you.

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

what's confusing people is it now appears that we're talking two different things. the first thing is the family list. That family list shares each other's games. sharing. the second thing is the used games thing. if you no longer want a title, you can sell that title away to someone else or to a retailer. at that point, you no longer own the title and through some mechanism, it no longer works on your system.

as for the "giving once" (basically selling it away). even that has not really been clarified. what most people are assuming is person A gives away the game to person B and person B cannot give it away in the future and is the dead-end for that title. however, the statement can also be interpreted as person A cannot give the game to person B and also give the game to person C. Person A can only give it away once to either person B or person C but not both. Everything I have read is various authors' interpretation of the statements. but the statement is actually unclear.

there's still a lot of confusion and these months ahead, things will have to be elucidated.

Let's say you own 11 games. These games are in your library. You add 10 friends and family members to your account. What's possible? You can play one game while every one of your 10 friends plays one of your games. The only restriction is that everyone has to be playing different games at any given time.

Now, I'm assuming that the game owner (you) gets first priority. If your friend is playing your copy of Forza Motorsport 5, and you want to play it, tough luck for them. They'll have to finish their race another time (or let their drivatar finish it).

Notice how parts of the document say "friends and family" but the part of sharing games only says "family". They will probably add some restriction or check (perhaps based on credit card credential) to make sure you can't just share to anybody but only family members. So I doubt you'll be able to switch around "families" and share to your friends. Also the doc clearly says you and only ONE FAMILY member can be playing your shared library at the same time. Not per game.

Wrong.

From the article:

Quote:

Mehdi couldn't give comprehensive details but he did clarify some things.

For one, a family member doesn't have to be a "blood relative," he said [...] For another, they don't have to live in the primary owner's house—I could name a friend that lives 3,000 miles away as one of my "family members" Mehdi said.

I think you are right about the only 1 member of the family can play a single game at a time tho. Which suck.

And a family member that play one of your games doesn't block the owner from playing it.

I didn't say Steam is kept in check by a resale market, did I? I never referred to used PC games sales. I said it is kept in check by competition - new sale/games competition. Both online and physical. Trust me, if Steam was the only vector for selling games, they'd charge more.

Ok, so please explain who, exactly, is going to be the only seller of Xbox1 games? Are all the publishers going to go digital? They haven't on the PC. Are Xbox1 games not going to be sold at Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Gamestop, fye, et al? I don't understand where you are going here.

Retailers have little-to-no room to compete on price. Their margin on new console games is slim-to-none as it is. A $60 game is purchased for $58 or so from the manufacturer -- and guess who manufactures all the games for the XB1?

Let's say you own 11 games. These games are in your library. You add 10 friends and family members to your account. What's possible? You can play one game while every one of your 10 friends plays one of your games. The only restriction is that everyone has to be playing different games at any given time.

Now, I'm assuming that the game owner (you) gets first priority. If your friend is playing your copy of Forza Motorsport 5, and you want to play it, tough luck for them. They'll have to finish their race another time (or let their drivatar finish it).

Notice how parts of the document say "friends and family" but the part of sharing games only says "family". They will probably add some restriction or check (perhaps based on credit card credential) to make sure you can't just share to anybody but only family members. So I doubt you'll be able to switch around "families" and share to your friends. Also the doc clearly says you and only ONE FAMILY member can be playing your shared library at the same time. Not per game.

I, honestly, don't buy "digital is better" as portrayed by MS in that particular case. Having said that, I have a question: did Sony come out and say that they will prohibit the publishers from including always online DRM? If not, I fully expect the publishers to include something to that extent to position themselves similarly in Xbox One and PS4 markets.

So far in the console wars of the past, we've seen massive battles at the onset of each new generations, with consoles barely able to keep up or otherwise dying out shortly after their release (the Saturn comes to mind), but we're seeing something entirely new here:

A console mortally wounded by the new generation race's starting pistol shot.

Once the dust settles and smoke clears, I think people will warm up to Xbox way more than people here seem to assume.

One thing I don't understand is how come nobody mentions that PS4's $400 price tag doesn't include the Eye camera while Xbox One includes Kinect? It was weird watching pages and pages of people going ape over the news of Xbox price yesterday without any mention of that. Sure I understand some people don't care for Kinect, but I think a lot of people do want the next gen Kinect.

Because core gamers don't care about Kinect. At all. In fact, no motion sensing nonsense is a bonus among this group, because it means no games with awkward controls tacked on just for the sake of using the thing.

Kinect is like the Wiimote. It appealed to people who don't play a lot of games, for a while. Then it wound up collecting dust. Basing an entire system around it and being able to watch TV is really never going to appeal to serious gamers.

Exactly, I got a Move kit as a gift, I played maybe 3 or 4 times with it and now it's collecting dust. I have no interest in motion-based controller.

Something that's been gnawing on my mind over the last couple of days is how fundamentally incompatible the terms of usage (can't really call it "ownership") embodied by MS's and the publishers' new policies is with the idea of public libraries. If all media, from books to movies, were treated the way they're seeking to treat video games, it would be impossible for libraries to function. Books, DVDs, and CDs don't require remote authentication servers to operate. There are audio CDs in my library that are over 20 years old and still play wonderfully. The same will never be said of SimCity 2013, or (apparently) any of these XBox One games. You can't even lend them out to the public in the first place. Meanwhile, the New York Public Library is already heavily invested in making games as accessible as books to the public. You can borrow carts and discs and play them at home, or in the building.

The model that publishers and distributors of games are working towards is inherently at odds with the mission of public libraries to serve as freely accessible repositories and reference hubs for culturally important information and ideas. This means that video games released under their model are at odds with the same mission, regardless of whether the preserver is a library or a private archivist. Entire gaming franchises could be lost to time simply because there's no way to phone home anymore, not because the equipment to play it is obsolete or rare.

If the publishers and distributors are putting themselves at odds with the idea of cultural preservation and accessibility, this also stands video games in stark contrast to books, film, and other forms of art. How does that impact the push to recognize gaming as a legitimate form of expression and vehicle for ideas just like literature and cinema? The apparent attitude of publishers, that games are so distinct as to make their preservation and dissemination through libraries neither viable nor desirable, how can they argue that games are, in fact, a legit form of expression that requires first amendment protection from censorship?

The policies embodied by the Xbone are entirely short-sighted and counterproductive from the standpoint of cultural enrichment. They can only be explained in terms of pure greed and the desire to rob society of its right to enjoy a work of art in perpetuity, either for entertainment or to better understand ourselves.

"any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time"

If they meant "all family members can play from the shared library simultaneously", they would have said so.

A couple words in that sentence are dead giveaways that people keep obfuscating or waving away, hoping for a utopia of 10 people all sharing a single library and single gold account:

"any one of your family".

This is not standard english to mean "everyone", even the phrasing is weird. If they meant "everyone", that "any one" would be "every one". This would mean that everybody in your family can access the library simultaneously, but then we get the second clue:

"at a given time."

This modifier is only necessary in the sentence if we are specifying that access to the library is limited in some fashion; either by number of concurrent logins, or library access.

And none of this addresses "Gold" level services being accessed by a "family", and what that means.

I write technical documents for a living, and have to parse this stuff constantly. This "family" thing is not as rosy as many people are hoping it is.

I am skeptical of this statement. I know anecdotes aren't data, but anecdotally it was used games that let me play at all when I was in college, and now I buy most games new. If I couldn't have played in college, I might not be playing now. I bought Dragon Age used partially because it was a great deal and it had nice cover art. Entirely because of that, I preordered Dragon Age 2 and have money waiting for Dragon Age 3's preorder. Even when I buy new, I buy more because I have that store credit from the last ones I sold back.

But even if it's true, I don't care. I avoid piracy because I personally think it is immoral. I don't have any moral qualms about reselling my used car and I don't have any qualms about reselling my console games.

I have been following this cloely (like many others have been), and I do not see anyone mention the fact that Micorsoft is leveraging cloud computing to compute physics and textures even while playing single player games. Surprising, since Sony does not feel the need to do this...

I noticed this during microsofts day 1 presentation. most of the titles they presented, they managed to slip in some language about cloud rendering or cloud AI or some nonsense. I immediately thought to myself "....so this is the simcity console?". methinks its a cover for always on drm.

I am skeptical of this statement. I know anecdotes aren't data, but anecdotally it was used games that let me play at all when I was in college, and now I buy most games new. If I couldn't have played in college, I might not be playing now. I bought Dragon Age used partially because it was a great deal and it had nice cover art. Entirely because of that, I preordered Dragon Age 2 and have money waiting for Dragon Age 3's preorder. Even when I buy new, I buy more because I have that store credit from the last ones I sold back.

But even if it's true, I don't care. I avoid piracy because I personally think it is immoral. I don't have any moral qualms about reselling my used car and I don't have any qualms about reselling my console games.

I commented on a previous article and kind of suspected this would be coming.

"you wouldn't steal a car would you?""you wouldnt steal a game would you?""buying used games is stealing from the publishers pockets"

Many gamers don't want the Kinect, and having it forced on them is kind of annoying. The Eye for PlayStation is an option which is just another point where Sony has left it up to the Gamer instead of trying to mold there customer base into the business model the company wants. I understand your point, but honestly the eye is a non issue.

This cloud based sharing with friends sounds killer to me. My core gaming friends live in other cities (we met when I went to school in a different city) so the ability to share titles easily is kind of intriguing. Not sure if it outweighs the lost potential income from selling a game back however but it'll cause me to think about it.

I have been following this cloely (like many others have been), and I do not see anyone mention the fact that Micorsoft is leveraging cloud computing to compute physics and textures even while playing single player games. Surprising, since Sony does not feel the need to do this...

i half suspect it's marketing puffery, rather than being as important as they claim. or an attempt to distract people from DRM....

ditto for the kinect -- they blather on that, "it reads your heartbeat!" "it's amazing!" while completely failing to demonstrate that any of this is true. the first kinect is erratic and gimmicky, and they made the same sort of nonsense claims when they launched that: "it will revolutionize gaming!" "it's magic!"

so, yeah, i'll believe it when i see it. until then, i'm not buying into it.

Why do people assume that the Xbox One requires a "reliable" connection? You'll just need to have enough of a connection that it can validate your games once a day, and it'll do so even while it's off.

Except that Microsoft confirmed that they will be levereaging cloud technologies to suplement physics calculations and texture rendering. So if you do not have a reliable internet connection, and I do, my game (on the same console) technically will look better even if its the same title.

I didn't say Steam is kept in check by a resale market, did I? I never referred to used PC games sales. I said it is kept in check by competition - new sale/games competition. Both online and physical. Trust me, if Steam was the only vector for selling games, they'd charge more.

Ok, so please explain who, exactly, is going to be the only seller of Xbox1 games? Are all the publishers going to go digital? They haven't on the PC. Are Xbox1 games not going to be sold at Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Gamestop, fye, et al? I don't understand where you are going here.

Evidently.

Amazon, Target, et al are retailers. But the new model is the same as getting an online copy. The disc is pretty much useless.

Is or is not the disc being sold?

Quote:

MS is deliberately trying to lock-out competition so they can keep prices high - used game resale competition.

COMPETITION PC SALES HAVE NOT HAD SINCE BEFORE STEAM.

Sort your argument the hell out because right now you are trying to sell me one thing while pretending my argument applies to another. Are you saying that locking the resale market out of Xbox1 gaming prevents Microsoft from having to put games on sale? Because that's a load of shit and makes it no different than Steam.If you are saying no retailer will be selling Xbox1 games (you know, why you are saying Steam has sales - retail competition), then I damn well expect you to prove it.